- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Privatelayer Inc
by Nigel Titley 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

Dear Private Layer If there is anybody from Private Layer actually reading this list can they please take their ticketing system OFF it. You are the last member to do this. It is difficult to understand why you are unable to do this. There are two possibilities: 1. No one at Private Layer reads trouble tickets 2. No one at Private Layer knows how to take their ticket system off the list Neither bodes well for your continued viability as a commercial entity. Fondest regards Nigel

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Voting @ GM 2011
by Hank Nussbacher 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

At 11:54 07/11/2011 +0100, Lu Heng wrote: >Hi Hank: >They will take money from reserve as I heard in the GM. >It was like 4M(if I was not remember it wrong) shortage Always nice to have reserves, but they tend to dry up after extensive use. I hope the EB has some plans of cost cutting, other than RIPE NCC's ideas of cost cutting such as <sarcasm> taking on a 2MEuro RIPE ATLAS Probe project</sarcasm>. -Hank >On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Hank Nussbacher <hank(a)efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote: > > At 10:25 07/11/2011 +0000, James Blessing wrote: > >>On 07/11/2011 10:16, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: > >> > >> > Can you explain us and to the whole list what will be happen now as I > >> > guess it was the first time since we are a member that the GM don't > >> > adopt the Charging Scheme ?? > >> > >>As was explained at the GM by Nigel, the charging scheme that currently > >>exists would be used leading to an expected revenue shortfall > > > > In most businesses I know of, when there is an expected revenue shortfall, > > cuts are made - either in salary, amount of manpower or in projects. I > > hope RIPE NCC has contingency plans in place. > > > > Regards, > > Hank > > > > > >>J > >>-- > >>James Blessing > >>+44 7989 039 476 > >>Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > >>Limelight Networks > >> > >>---- > >>If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > >>mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > >>general page: > >>https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >> > >>Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > >>here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > > >-- >This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. >It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use >of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the >intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received >this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and >e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this >message and including the text of the transmission received.

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
by Hank Nussbacher 29 Oct '11

29 Oct '11

At 11:16 03/10/2011 +0200, Erik Bais wrote: >Hi Jon, > >Without repeating myself in this discussion, I'll just post a url for you >to read from earlier this year on the topic. >http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/members-discuss/2011/msg00154.ht… > >Basically, the members approve the activity schedule for the RIPE NCC. >That means that we also shouldn't bitch about a certain cost, not for >profit doesn't mean free :) We do not get much of a say as to how much budget should be applied for regional meetings, consultancy, training courses, RIPE meetings, marketing, r&d, etc. We are given a budget that increases every year and are told to ratify it - of which only 5% of the membership vote. Most LIRs don't care if the fee is 3KEuro or 10KEuro since it just gets absorbed as a minor cost overhead as passed on to customers. And RIPE knows it. -Hank >If we don't agree..either we should have a look at how certain costs are >being made or we should scrap certain activities. > >In the end.. we're only talking about 6.25 euro per LIR per day. > >Regards, >Erik Bais > >---- >If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >general page: >https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > >Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >here, you can add or remove addresses.

26 45

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 18 Oct '11

18 Oct '11

Hello everybody, >From the counts it seems that the "not much increase" paradigm is not in the intentions of the new charging scheme. While I'd prefer to see the numbers in percents of amount to pay, the counting shows - the new charging scheme is way off the initial good feeling. (I hope the counting are fair - i.e. includes independent resources like PI and ASN). I'd like also hear some words from RIPE NCC about several suggestions voiced in the list. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jochem de Ruig Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:18 PM To: Nigel Titley; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 Dear all, About 40% of members will pay less and about 60% of members will pay more. Pay less in EUR less than 1,000 0% 1,000 - 500 9% 499 - 0 31% Pay more 1 - 499 32% 500 - 999 3% 1,000 - 1,999 19% 2,000 - 5,000 4% more than 5,000 1% Regards, Jochem On Oct 12, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Nigel Titley wrote: On 12/10/2011 13:56, Mike Hollowell wrote: On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:30 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: 30% of XSmall members moving up, 9% of XSmall members moving down. 59% of Small members moving up, 14% Small members moving down. 100% M, L& XL moving up. Doesn't look the least bit balanced, roughly or otherwise. I did talk about the costs and not the membership category. Let me see if Jochem can give us some figures on what percentage of members will see *cost* increase and decrease. Nigel

1 0

Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012
by Sascha Luck 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

Hi, the proposed CS2012 contains the following footnote to the table for the calculation of membership categories: "Note 1: All IPv4 and IPv6 addresses (Provider Independent and Provider Aggregatable) are taken into account." For clarification, does this mean all PI space managed by the LIR on behalf of End Users, or only PI space directly assigned to the LIR? If the former, what is the justification to charging for this space twice, once through moving into a higher category and again through the EUR50 annual charge for Independent Resources? rgds, Sascha Luck ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

4 11

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

Then - could you explain - why my question about why selling ASN per-number is not violating the current policy was not answered? Or you would deny this question too? > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:54 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert(a)space.net; bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 16:32, <poty(a)iiat.ru> wrote: > > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > While Gert did a good job of dismantling your factual points, I would > like to add a more personal/netiquette note. > > If you feel that you absolutely _have_ to accuse someone not only of > lying but of deliberate manipulation, please have some specific, > verifiable facts at the ready to back up your claim. In this specific > case, I highly doubt you have any. > > 2007-01 has been discussed at length prior to its voting. Coming late > to the game is not an excuse to pretend your voice was ignored on > purpose. > > > Richard ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

5 5

Side tracking on Charging schema and Auto-mail responders ...
by Erik Bais 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

If one would like to put a proposal forward that RIPE would actually increase the cost category of a LIR that replies to send emails on the general mail lists with a ticketing system with at least 1 category for the year ahead ... Is that something that one can ask for to vote on the AGM or is that something that needs a PDP proposal ? Kind regards, Erik Bais ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

FW: Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

-----Original Message----- From: Potapov Vladislav Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:27 PM To: 'Nigel Titley' Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging Scheme 2012 Nigel, Yes, LIR can charge the end user for this service, but the artificial "protection" measures have led to strange "side effects", which I'll try to explain in the real numbers of one of the LIRs I administer: What the LIR has: PA: 1x /19 AS: 1 Client PI: 1x /23 Client AS: 1 As you can see - nothing special and abusive? But let's think about that once more: - according to the PA allocation and LIRs ASN I'd pay in 2012: Category=M, >20 but <=19 IPv4, >8 but <=16 ASN = 2000 euro + 50 euro (1 ASN)= 2050 euro - serving the client's resources in addition: Category=L, >19 but <=16 IPv4, >16 but <=32 ASN = 3000 euro + 150 euro (2 ASN + PI)= 3150 euro So the "protective measures" costs the LIR legally serving only [1 PI assignment with ASN] additional 1100 euro or 550 euro for a "independent resource". Is it fair? How could the LIR count how much the client should pay for the resources if every year RIPE NCC invents new charging scheme with such huge deviations? IF (I pointed out once more - IF) the scheme should be voted - it MUST have some "independent resources margin" like it has about ASNs, but not pile up all addresses chunks. I should clarify my position about the three supporting documents listed in the GM 2011 agenda. - I'm not against rising budget, but the rise should be clearly explained. In this case the Activity Plan should have all the necessary cost values, the Budget - clear explanation what the additional expenses will go, Charging Scheme should be stable to be able to predict LIRs expenses. (Side note: if a company due to a very good business plan has unnecessary 1k-2k euro to pay for bad work of financial department of RIPE NCC, it could as well send the money to me - I'm very welcomed this motion. :) ). - The proposed Charging Scheme has not achieved declared goal - simplicity and in my opinion became even more tough to understand and have many dishonest issues. Then for the 2012 the Charging Scheme should be saved from 2011. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:52 PM > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Clarification re proposed Charging > Scheme 2012 > > On 12/10/2011 18:48, Sascha Luck wrote: > > Hi Jochem, > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 07:35:38PM +0200, Jochem de Ruig wrote: > >> For example, if a /18 is requested and would put an LIR into a > larger > >> category, if we did not take the PI resource into account for the > >> categorisation, requesting a /18 of PI space would be beneficial > over a > >> requesting a /18 of PA space. > > Right, this makes kind of sense for PI space assigned to the > requesting > > LIR. What about space requested on behalf of end users - the LIR > does > > not benefit from the use of this space, in fact after 2007-01 it > merely > > handles the request on behalf of the end user and the NCC. > > > The LIR is free to charge the end user for this service, surely? Or am > I > confused? > > Nigel > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

2 1

Fwd: [ncc-announce] [NOC #EXN-767-26459]: 128.0.0.0/16 configured as martian: Please update your routers
by Alfredo Sola 13 Oct '11

13 Oct '11

Does this set a new record? These mor^H^H^Hcolleagues have their RIPE-subscribed address redirected to their ticketing system, AND this Fabien guy who receives the new ticket notifications has set an auto-responder that respects neither a mailing list, nor his own ticketing system. I have to confess that I am beginning to be rather unpolite with this kind of situation. If I had nothing better to do... Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: "postmaster(a)internet-fr.net" <noc(a)fmn.uk.net> > Asunto: [ncc-announce] [NOC #EXN-767-26459]: 128.0.0.0/16 configured as martian: Please update your routers > Fecha: 13 de octubre de 2011 10:45:09 GMT+02:00 > Para: ncc-announce(a)ripe.net > Responder a: noc(a)fmn.uk.net > > Bonjour, > Je suis actuellement en cong?, de retour mercredi 19 Octobre. En cas d'urgence, merci de contacter notre service support au +33 1 64 53 17 98. > Cordialement, > > Hi, > I'm in vacation until Wednesday 19th Oct. You can reach our support team at this phone number: +33 1 64 53 17 98. > regards, > > Fabien Dedenon > Internet Fr > > > > Ticket Details > Ticket ID: EXN-767-26459 > Department: Network Operations (NOC) > Type: Issue > Status: Open > Priority: Medium > > Support Center: http://helpdesk.fmn.uk.net/index.php? > > Cordialement, > > Hi, > I'm in vacation until Wednesday 19th Oct. You can reach our support team at this phone number: +33 1 64 53 17 98. > regards, > > Fabien Dedenon > Internet Fr > > > > Ticket Details > Ticket ID: EXN-767-26459 > Department: Network Operations (NOC) > Type: Issue > Status: Open > Priority: Medium > > Support Center: http://helpdesk.fmn.uk.net/index.php? -- Alfredo Sola ASP5-RIPE http://www.solucionesdinamicas.net/ ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by Brandon Butterworth 12 Oct '11

12 Oct '11

> Complication was further > introduced by 2007-01 and we put off implementing this for an additional > year under the principle of least surprise. If you need to charge to make people use it effectively just put it on our bill like everything else. Having to faff with clients signing contracts was surprise and not wanted, trying to make clients become LIR/direct RIPE customers was not wanted. > We also have to work within the constraints of the Dutch tax > system, which eliminates certain options, as we've seen. Finally we, the > board, have a legal duty, affecting us personally (yes, that means they > take my house away if the RIPE NCC gets into difficulty), to run the > business of the RIPE NCC in a prudent and legal fashion. Move it to UK and make a limited company then, that's a crazy risk to have to take on personally regards brandon ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

FW: budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 12 Oct '11

12 Oct '11

Hello everyone, The activity plan is almost useless as soon as it doesn't include any expenses. The biggest part of the so called "plan" is a copy from previous years' plans and there is no mention why the budget for executing the plan should be raised and for what needs particularly. The community is asking for the information for many years and many years the "plan" exists in the pristine clear from expenses form. Regards, Potapov Vladislav Ru.iiat From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nigel Titley Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:30 PM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 On 11/10/2011 10:18, Geert Hauwaerts wrote: I strongly agree with the motions raised about maintaining a responsible budget; and perhaps in light of recent developments, we should take a moment and evaluate some of the projects the RIPE NCC has taken on itself. This is why we circulate the activity plan well in advance of setting the budget and the charging scheme. We typically get no response to the activity plan at all. I do take on board Kurtis' comments about making the activity plan more transparent with regards to costs of individual activities and we will ask the RIPE NCC to make this clearer. Additionally, and without any disrespect, if any of the Board Members feel they do not have adequate time to fulfill their duties; they might wish to vacate their seat in favor of somebody who does. RIPE NCC board/RIPE WG activities take up roughly 2 days per *week* of my time. I'm lucky to have an employer that is happy with this. However, as I made clear, this discussion blew up at the time of the month when I happen to have to spend a couple of days full time on the day job. Apologies for this. Nigel ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

As far as those not contributing in the list "not care" or "agreed with everything" it is unwise to predict "what the membership as a whole wants". All the more nobody can act as God to be able to say: "I know what everybody thinks and what everybody wants". I appreciate the answers of RIPE NCC, but "I am happy to monitor", "Rest assured", "the board is very well paying attention" are not answers the members of the list are waiting for and doesn't bring any clear vision on the process of determination of what changes we should welcomed at GM. The questions at the RIPE meeting will be late and not productive at all. Looking at the expenses in the proposed budget I can see the increase in all parts. I do not agree with the situation. Some time ago in 1998 I was in London attending the RIPE courses. It was 5* hotel and one of the natives said with some sadness, "We all do not live like that!" Maybe we'll look into decreasing the pomp for all our rather technical meetings/courses/hotels...? I'll look also into decreasing the stuff: as soon as it's said they are the best in the industry they can do more than average middle-salaried worker. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christian Kaufmann > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:54 AM > To: Nigel Titley > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > ...as Nigel and Fahad said, the board is very well paying attention to > the list and what the members want. > And for the ones who don't want to send an email to the list, feel free > to send a direct email to us or even better feel free to talk to us in > person at the next RIPE meeting.:-) > > Best regards, > > ck > > > > > On Oct 11, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Nigel Titley wrote: > > > On 10/10/2011 22:50, Fahad AlShirawi wrote: > >> And on my side I am happy to monitor the members' discussion and see > what it is the members want and then to bring it up internally. Rest > assured Hank that we will consider all concerns where applicable and as > much as possible within the constraints we have. > > Yes, thanks for making this clear, Fahad. > > > > As far as I am aware, all members of the board read this list and > take > > notice of what the members want. Our sometimes difficult job is to > try > > and sort out what the membership as a whole wants, rather than just > the > > dozen or so active contributors to the list. > > > > Always feel free to send any of us a direct personal question or > > comment, especially if there is a period of quiet. As I've mentioned > > before, we all have day jobs which sometimes intrude on our board > work. > > > > Nigel > > > > ---- > > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

10 10

Electronic voting.
by Pawel Tyll 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Why is electronic voting made so complicated? Why can't it be a part of LIR portal? In who's interest lies reduction of votes given? ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Yes, it is voted for, but what was the words preceding the vote? In the slides there were many "proves" that the current scheme is a catastrophe (which was a complete lie, because the current scheme didn't use the right factors in the presentation intentionally - after the presentation we discussed the matter and many RIPE NCC members agreed that) and if we didn't vote for new scheme the world would die completely. :) I know also that there was big lobby in the GM. As soon as there was voting - nothing could be done against it, but many people know - the intention of the decision was bad! Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:38 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert(a)space.net; bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:32:00PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > I was there, and the change of the charging scheme was discussed for > *three* consecutive meetings, and it was voted for, and received the > majority of votes. > > The change to per-piece billing for PI and AS is came with the adoption > of 2007-01 and had nothing to do whatsoever with increasing the budget > (which it didn't, the LIR categories and fees were adjusted to make > this neutral in regards to the overall budget). > > Of course there are people that do not like any change that will > directly affect their business model (getting lots of PI for free and > selling for > money) - and this is why the change was announced well in advance, and > voted for(!). > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Dear Richard, You can look at the presentation by himself. It IS a fact of lie! The "current scheme" was not adopted for rising expenses while the other schemes - was. If you CAN read right - I'm not accusing Gert in the decision (it was not his decision anyway)- just in wrong position in the presenting of the possibilities. Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Hartmann [mailto:richih.mailinglist@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:54 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: gert(a)space.net; bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 16:32, <poty(a)iiat.ru> wrote: > > > It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC > > was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was > > forged - and personally you knew that. > > While Gert did a good job of dismantling your factual points, I would > like to add a more personal/netiquette note. > > If you feel that you absolutely _have_ to accuse someone not only of > lying but of deliberate manipulation, please have some specific, > verifiable facts at the ready to back up your claim. In this specific > case, I highly doubt you have any. > > 2007-01 has been discussed at length prior to its voting. Coming late > to the game is not an excuse to pretend your voice was ignored on > purpose. > > > Richard ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

It IS true. Several people can prove that. The answer of the RIPE NCC was - it is already late to change something. The presentation was forged - and personally you knew that. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:29 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: bangert(a)parknet.dk; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012 > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:24:22PM +0400, poty(a)iiat.ru wrote: > > I was at the GM where the fee for independent resources was > introduced. > > Nobody answered plain questions asked by me about why the charging > > scheme should be changed > > Not true. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner- > Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by poty＠iiat.ru 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

See inline: > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Thilo Bangert > it's great to see people caring about issues at RIPE. IMHO it's not so great > that some seem to derail the discussion on the membership fees. > > RIPE is growing and therefore they need more money. do the math - and listen > to what other people on this list say: while the budget is increasing the > individual membership fee is not (as much), since there're many more > members to shoulder the burden. Let's see what does it means for my company as small member in 2011: The budget should be increased by 100% * (19317-17891)/17891 ~ 8%. My membership fee should be increased (like 27% of other former small members according the charging scheme) from 1800 (+150 for my ASN+(ASN+PI)for a client) to 3000 (+150 for the same things). 100%*(3150-1950)/1950 ~61.5%. Can you prove your words about "the individual membership fee is not (as much) [increased]"? > also the increased budget is necessary to fund the > actions decided upon by the community. Maybe it's better to vote which actions should stay next year than just fiddling about immortal RIPE activity "decided by the community"? > > How many of those objecting the current budget have been involved in shaping > these actions? Given that the only suggestions seem to be cutting meetings and > trainings i get at strong impression that there has not been any involvement > at all... Wrong assumption (at least according to me). I don't like to have the conversations become personal. But could you explain - why the priceless RIPE staff can live only in 5* hotels while they are out of RIPE NCC office (for meetings, trainings, business)? Or why for a group of 12 people the training courses is planned in the 5* room facility? Nobody asked for full stop of meetings and trainings, just increasing the expenses seems chic at some time. And if you really read all messages here you should know, that there are many suggestions, not only optimizing trainings and meetings. I was at the GM where the fee for independent resources was introduced. Nobody answered plain questions asked by me about why the charging scheme should be changed (all had agreed that we could live with old one and have enough budget), why ASN selling is not "per resource" scheme (really the main argument of RIPE NCC against "flat fee" now) and so on. Empty meaning words as answers - the words we see here in the discussion again. > run-out-fairly requires extra work - but its most definitively the small LIRs > that profit from it and that is a good thing. Several people asked for EXACT COUNTINGS. As soon as you suggested doing math - give us problem situation! > the increased service level with the much improved database tools etc. The same as above - what is exact expenses and what for the increasing expenses will go? What are going to be "new level of service" in numbers? > are much welcome investments well worth their money. By whom? > and no - this is no blank check for RIPE either. i still felt well > represented as "the quiet majority" by the RIPE EB. You are going to feel trouble when at the next GM (maybe not the exactly next, but nearest) the quiet majority will be unable to outcount the active dissenting. I'm going to be at the incoming GM and will ask very uneasy questions. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] budget 2012
by Artem Buglak 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

11.10.2011 17:02 пользователь "James Blessing" <jblessing(a)llnw.com> написал: > > On 11/10/2011 13:51, Artem Buglak wrote: > >I haven't had a chance to catch routing registry training in > > Russia for last 3 years (on my memory neither Moscow nor St.Petersburg > > hosted those courses since 2008), not to mention how difficult it may be > > to attend any training courses for LIRs in far eastern parts of Russia. > > Good thing there is one later this year then... > > https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses > > J Hmph... I've checked before sending =) no RR training for Moscow - just LIR and IPv6 for LIR > > > -- > James Blessing > +44 7989 039 476 > Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA > Limelight Networks > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

JUNOS and 128.0.0.0 martian (JFYI)
by Timur Maryin 11 Oct '11

11 Oct '11

Hello! Recently RIPE NCC started to allocate addresses from 128/8 to end users, example: https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/inetnum/128.0.0.0-128.0.7.255.ht… JunOS software (upto and including 11.1 version) blocks those addresses by default as martians: > show route martians inet.0: 0.0.0.0/0 exact -- allowed 0.0.0.0/8 orlonger -- disallowed 127.0.0.0/8 orlonger -- disallowed 128.0.0.0/16 orlonger -- disallowed In fact there will be no connectivity for newly allocates addresses and Juniper routers all around the world unless people change default behavior or juniper changes default settings for martians. We've opened JTAC case about it. P.S. In order to fix it you should implement set routing-options martians 128.0.0.0/16 orlonger allow on your juniper routers. ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

2 1

Charging Scheme 2011, additional information
by Axel Pawlik 07 Oct '11

07 Oct '11

Dear all, Thank you all for your valuable feedback and your patience. Please find below some more information and clarification on some of the issues being raised on this mailing list. - Charging scheme The proposed charging scheme for 2012 was drafted after discussion with the membership, as Nigel said earlier. We avoided making any radical changes to the charging scheme as the current tax ruling is favourable. The tax ruling will have to be reviewed if any major change is made. Changing the charging scheme in the way that many of you are suggesting (sliding scale or fees per allocation) will almost certainly lead to the RIPE NCC incurring a corporate tax liability of 25.5% on any surplus and, in the worst case, on the organisation's reserves. - Using IPv4 as an indicator of involvement in Internet operations As we were thinking about fairness in the Charging Scheme, it was clear that a simple scheme in which each member pays the same amount would not be meeting the fairness target, as members of large corporate size are likely to benefit from RIPE NCC services more than the small local ISP - the more and deeply a member is involved in the operations of the Internet, the more it is likely to benefit from our services. In looking for a yardstick to measure "Involvement in the oparations of the Internet", we proposed that IPv4 serve as the basis because it is a known factor. This is fully independent of the impending IPv4 runout, or its technical relevance. See also my mail from August at: http://www.ripe.net/maillists/ncc-archives/members-discuss/2011/msg00174.ht… - The RIPE NCC budget There have been many opinions expressed about the RIPE NCC's budget and I'd like to add some facts and reasoning to the discussion: The RIPE NCC's budget has varied over the years, decreasing after 2002 for a couple of years and then increasing again since then. The receent increase is due to a continually strong membership growth, an increase in outreach activities across our service region and defending the bottom-up, industry self regulation in response to newly interested stakeholders. Looking at the last 10 years, the average cost per member decreased by more than 7 % from 2001. Measuring against 2005, it has increased again by just over 3 %. - Webinars vs face-to-face training Face to face trainings are extremely valuable for us; we need to engage with you to gather important feedback and to disseminate information. Trainings are also very popular with members, as has been indicated in our membership surveys. Online training also has been offered on our E-learning centre for several years: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning - Meeting costs There is no large financial benefit from holding meetings in the same city. Spreading meetings across the region is important as some of the community are unable to travel easily and value the occasional closer RIPE meeting. - Budget and personnel costs A large part of the RIPE NCC's budget has always been personnel costs - there's no change there. Even thought we are a not-for-profit organisation, we still need to compete with commercial organisations to ensure that we have competent and experienced staff. We can only do this by offering comparable salary and benefit packages. Over the last couple of years, we've implemented some organisational changes in order to streamline our activities and have focused on attracting high calibre staff to serve our members and the community and to promote and defend our interests in regional and global arenas. - RIR activities The RIPE NCC has its roots in the technical coordination and operation of the Internet. The task of Internet number resource distribution was added later. In addition, we perform many more activities for the RIPE community and for the general well-being of the Internet, including operating the K-root server, operation and maintenance of the RIPE Database and performing Internet measurements. All our activities are outlined in the RIPE NCC Activity Plan: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-506 We strive to gather input and feedback from our members and the RIPE community by regularly surveying the membership and various stakeholder groups. We also use feedback gathered from face-to-face contact during training courses and meetings and your opinions and suggestions are reflected in the activity plan. It is a challenge to strike a balance between continuity of operations and reacting to what our numerous stakeholder groups expect of us and from us - but we are continually listening to what you need. I'm sure you understand that we cannot implement every idea that you bring forward; however I do believe that both RIPE NCC staff as well as the Executive Board have worked particularly hard this year to gather your opinions and ideas, to examine the risks, and to bring forward a Charging Scheme that combines known elements with a set of changes aiming to marry fairness to simplicity. We all look forward very much to see many of you personally at the Vienna RIPE meeting, and also are very excited to see that the ability to use electronic voting on all resolutions in the General Meeting has minimised the threshold for participation. kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 1

Fwd: Re: budget 2012
by Hank Nussbacher 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

> >At 12:19 05/10/2011 -0300, SPEEDNIC S.R.L. - RIPE Handling wrote: >>One big point is that the personnel expenses will growing up by 6,3% >>!?!?! I don't guess that each one will get more money at this amount. >>But why we need that high increase - more personnel maybe - but why ?? >>The work at RIPE will be the same as before without needing more >>personnel because LIR can be waiting without problem like one day longer >>for some requests too - isn't it ? >> >>General Operating Expenses +10,8% ??? It is a joke not ? > >Ask yourself, why no one from RIPE has over the past week added to the >discussion here with the reasons and justifications for why they need to >increase their budget. > >-Hank > > >>Best regards, >> Alexander Schoberl >> SPEEDNIC S.R.L. Also note that the 9% increased budget is not up for voting. The only thing up for voting is the charging scheme. The 19MEuro budget is fait accompli. -Hank

5 5

Yet Another Proposal for the Charging Scheme 2012
by Sven Wiese 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

Hiya @everyone, I hope I didn't miss any of the last 108 E-Mails came through the mailing list these days. The current issues are concerning the charging scheme and the budget. Regarding the charging scheme, as I understood the RIPE NCC was interested in a "per IP" billing base, but this can't be done easily without risk due to tax issues. I hope no one proposed it yet and I didn't see it, so I don't bother people with my email now having a already existing proposal ;) In my opinion, the most fair solution for everyone would be if the RIPE removes the category based charging scheme and makes one member fee for everyone. Something like 500 EUR. Then there are no tax issues anymore, because RIPE takes a membership fee, so it has members. Additionally to this 500 EUR "base fee", every resource will be billed additionally, like currently with the IPv4-PI. I think that would solve all problems and we get our fair "per IP (resource)" billing. Something like: ASN = 50 EUR IPv4-PI /24 = 50 EUR IPv4-PI /23 = 100 EUR IPv4-PI /22 = 200 EUR IPv4-PI /21 = 400 EUR IPv4-PI /20 = 800 EUR [...] IPv4 alloc /22 = 50 EUR IPv4 alloc /21 = 100 EUR IPv4 alloc /20 = 200 EUR IPv4 alloc /19 = 400 EUR IPv4 alloc /18 = 800 EUR IPv4 alloc /17 = 1.600 EUR [...] IPv6 alloc /32 = 100 EUR [...] So, a LIR with a /17 IPv4 alloc, a /32 IPv6 alloc, a ASN and a /24 PI for his customer will pay 2.200 EUR. 500 EUR membership base fee + 1.600 EUR /17 alloc + 50 EUR ASN + 50 EUR /24 IPv4-PI. I just wrote some numbers down, without actually calculating a real price per allocation. The real prices have to be calculated based on the budget. But in my opinion this is the most fair way to bill its members. So everyone gets billed for the resources the he/she uses. Our own category wouldn't actually change with the proposal from RIPE, but still I'm concerned regarding our community. Cheers, Sven -- Sven Wiese CEO I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 844-844 [e] s.wiese(a)trabia.net <mailto:s.wiese@trabia.net> [i] www.trabia.net <http://www.trabia.net> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not in the addresses indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail.

3 3

Re: [members-discuss] Yet Another Proposal for the Charging Scheme 2012
by Sven Wiese 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

On 06.10.2011 12:34 , Michiel Klaver wrote: > So, you first suggest a basic member fee to avoid billing per IP, but > then you move to a scheme where you actually suggest fees per block of > IP addresses. Tell me, how is this not billing per ip? It still looks > like RIPE will be 'selling' amounts of IP addresses, grouped in > blocks. And selling 'products' has to be taxed. As Nigel wrote, the issues is that the RIPE NCC need to have *Members* to keep its status within the tax authorities. It's the *exact* same model as we have already with IPv4-PI. You pay your category fee and additional per each IPv4-PI resource. With my proposal we would have all the same category and also get billed for each PA resource. Cheers, Sven -- Sven Wiese CEO I.C.S. "Trabia-Network" S.R.L. [t] +373 (22) 844-844 [e] s.wiese(a)trabia.net <mailto:s.wiese@trabia.net> [i] www.trabia.net <http://www.trabia.net> Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not in the addresses indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such a case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2011100501001154] Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
by Brandon Butterworth 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

> If you forget your invoice, no notice, but after 30 days your membership > can be taken away with a sign up fee to re-instate.(5.3) ORLY. It always takes a while to get these invoices paid (corporation with limited supplier list requiring an exception order that as there's only one invoice per year is starting again from fresh each time, and it's international payment to confuse matters). This is a crazy plan, unless you need the re-instate income. I, like many others I suspect, don't have time to pay attention to the details of RIPE operation and trust them and the members approving on my behalf to do the right thing. As with the PI end user contracts it seems that is an unsafe trust. I always saw RIPE as the sane version of ARIN, please no extra crazy. brandon

1 0

Proposed 2012 Charging scheme, Board comments
by Nigel Titley 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

Dear all, I would like to update you about the RIPE NCC Executive Board deliberations regarding the draft charging scheme for 2012. We presented you with two draft schemes, in early summer, to gather feedback from you. We did this as we wanted to hear your opinions on measures we want to take which are designed to keep the RIPE NCC financially stable and capable of serving its members as it should. You engaged in a lively discussion on this mailing list, and even ran a mini-survey. We followed the exchanges closely and as result asked RIPE NCC staff to provide the board with another charging scheme option, based on a sliding scale scheme that eliminated the membership categories we currently use. During the board meeting of last Friday, 23 September, we discussed the merits as well as some of the issues of that model. Obviously a sliding scale model as its main benefit does away with the fee jumps of the category based model. We were pleased with the model that we developed with the NCC staff and felt that it addressed many of the issues raised by you, the members. However, in consultation with our tax lawyers we have had to think again. Because it brings a "fee-per-address" flavour to the charging model of the RIPE NCC it fundamentally alters the tax scheme under which we operate. The current "category" model allows us to argue that we are a membership association with different categories of membership. This brings substantial tax advantages. As you know, for a long time the RIPE NCC tax situation has been extremely favourable, as we don't have to pay corporation tax, based on an agreement made with the Dutch tax authorities many years ago. We are advised that the envisaged change in the charging scheme would lead to a re-assessment of that agreement, with the likely outcome that the association's surplus would have to be taxed, leading to a significant financial liability, with an obvious knock-on effect to the member fees. In the light of this, the board members have agreed not to expose our organisation to that risk, staying with a category based system. We have however noted your preference for reduced "fee jumps" between categories, and have instructed NCC staff to produce a charging scheme model based on 10 categories, doubling the current category number. Category divisions will be based on a count of address space held. This revised Charging Scheme 2012 we will publish, as usual, prior to the General Meeting in November, for approval by the members during the General Meeting. We can advise you already that we are opening up the voting mechanism for all resolutions to include electronic voting, so that all members of the association have a good opportunity to take a full part in the proceedings. At this time, I would like to thank you all, on behalf of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, for participating in the discussion. I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible at the next General Meeting. Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board

20 35